Talk:Paudel

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

परिचय पौडल वंश नेपालको प्राचीन ऋषिवंशबाट विकसित भएको वंश हो । महर्षि आत्रेयका सन्तति अर्चनानस, श्यावाश्व हुँदै आत्रेय पुनर्वसु इ.पू ६०० पतञ्जली – चरक) आत्रेय इ. पू. १५० सम्म इशा पूर्वको इतिहास विकास भएको छ भने इ सं ४६३ सोमनाथ आत्रेयबाट उदय भट्ट (दशौ शताब्दी) चाबा, सदु (१३ औं शताब्दी) हुँदै विकास भएर आज सम्मको वंश विकासको इतिहास यस वंशको प्रमाणिक आधार रही आएको छ । विक्रमको १२ औं शताब्दीमा पौडी गढवाल निवासी प्रसिद्ध विद्वान् वत्सराज भट्टलाई आफ्नो वाजपेय यज्ञ सम्पादन गर्न तत्कालीन डोटी पार्वत्य राज्यका राजा राधा माधव सेनले यज्ञका प्रमुख आचार्य बनाई यज्ञ सम्पन्न गर्दा उनमा वैराग्य उत्पन्न भई सम्पूर्ण राजपाठ सहित आफ्नी एक मात्र छोरी शुभकन्या वत्सराजलाई दान दिई आफू काशीवासका लागि गए पछि, त्यहाँ पौडीबाट आएका वत्सराजको वंश विस्तार हुँदै गयो । पौडी गढवालबाट आएका हुनाले यिनको वंश – पौडी+ आलय ) पौडयालय कहलिन थाल्यो । कालान्तरमा पौडयालयबाट पौडयाल र पौडेल थरको विकास भएको पाइन्छ ।

नेपालमा पौडेलवंशका जात जातिहरुको संख्या करिव २१ लाख छ । पहिले यिनीहरुको पुर्खा नेपालका पुराना वाइसी चौविसी राज्यहरुमा राजगुरुका रुपमा सम्मानित थिए । त्यसैले हरेक थुमे राज्यहरुमा पौडेलहरुको विस्तार हुन पुगेको अनुमान छ । पौडेलहरु बाहुन, क्षेत्रीका अतिरिक्त अनेक जात र वर्गमा विभाजित छन् । तर पनि पौडेलहरुको एउटै गोत्र आत्रेय र प्रवर पनि आत्रेय, अर्चनाना, श्यावाश्व त्रिप्रवर नै हो । अनेक जात जातिमा विभक्त पौडेलहरु अहिले विश्वका १२७ मुलुकहरुमा पुगेका छन् । उनीहरुको आफ्नो पुरानो इतिहासलाई बिर्सेर आफ्नो पेशा, व्यवसाय गरेर त्यहाँ बसेका छन् । कतिपय पौडेलहरु आफ्नो थर नै बिर्सेर पनि बसेका छन् ।

अहिले पौडेलहरु नेपालको हरेक क्षेत्रमा छन् । नेपालका दोस्रा प्रधानमन्त्री मुख्तियार रङ्गनाथ पौडयाल, कवि शिरोमणि लेखनाथ पौडयाल, लक्ष्मीधर फलाहारी, पं. जयमंङ्गल पौडेल, पण्डित राज ब्रजनाथ पौडेल, विद्यापति पौडेल, आदि यस्ता नामहरु हुन जो पौडेल वंशको कुलदीपकका रुपमा प्रकाशमान छन् । वर्तमान समयमा नेपाल र नेपालीको श्रीवृद्धिको लागि पौडेलहरु शिक्षा, विज्ञान, संस्कृति, धर्म, दर्शन, राजनीति, समाजसेवा लगायत हरेक क्षेत्रमा सेवारत छन् । संसारभर छरिएर रहेका पौडेलहरुलाई एकताको सूत्रमा बाध्ने तथा उनीहरुलाई आफनो परिचय र वंंशबारे जानकारी गराउने उद्देश्यले यो सूचना मूलक वेबसाइट खोलिएको हो । यसबाट पौडेल बन्धुहरुका अतिरिक्त हाम्रो बारेमा जानकारी लिन जिज्ञासु अन्वेषक र अन्य महानुभावहरु पनि लाभान्वित हुनुहुनेछ भन्ने हामीले विश्वास लिएका छौं ।

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is the English wikipedia, please make your request in English as that is the language any content changes will be made in. Cannolis (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Links

I reverted here. WP:APOENTRIES is apparently the consensus of the WP Anthroponymy Project and it does indeed say we should not link descriptors such as Second Nepalese Constituent Assembly. However, that is a local, project-level consensus and it really doesn't seem to be in the spirit of a hyperlinked encyclopaedia. The Second Nepalese Constituent Assembly is highly unlikely to be a term familiar to many readers and thus such links seem inherently desirable provided that they accord with community-wide consensus (eg: per WP:OVERLINKS). - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Descriptors aren't there to provide encyclopedic information but to efficiently guide readers to the article of the person they're looking for. The principle of one blue link per entry seems to follow from the disambiguation manual of style (a recent discussion might give you an idea of how well established this principle is). Uanfala (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, they should be there to provide encyclopaedic information. Who the hell is making up these "rules"? It sounds to me like a bunch of pedants who've lost sight of what the encyclopaedia is supposed to be doing. As for this, well, I bow to your (presumed) greater knowledge of whatever a "retroflex" may be and why, say, IPA isn't preferable if we must have something there. But I still think the spelling as shown repeats the very first word of the article and that the first word is as it is because it simply conforms to COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and please do not forget that MOS is just a guideline. Let's not have the Mabbets, McCandlishes etc running riot here too. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing encyclopedic about a list of people sharing a certain name. Their only purpose, as far as I can see, is to help readers get to the article they're looking for. If you're unhappy about the way such lists are handled across the whole of the English wikipedia, you might want to bring it up with the "bunch of pedants" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards or WT:MOSDAB.

A transliteration provides a different kind of information than the article title. The common English name might be the same as the transliterated title, but often enough it isn't. Even in the cases where they are completely identical (which they aren't here), it might possibly make sense to keep the transliteration: without it you can wonder whether the common name isn't actually one of the many weirdly anglicised forms that don't have much to do with the transliterated version. As for IPA, it is always welcome. Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's a guideline, what else could it be? As for the McCandlishes, I'm not really getting what you mean. Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you never clicked on a link just because it seemed it might provide some pertinent information of which you were previously unaware? We even have the Random Article feature here, which by your definition would seem to be even more pointless.

I haven't commented about this issue in relation to the rest of Wikipedia, merely in relation to this article. It relates effectively to a country about which most people will know very little. If we can give them a more immediate access to greater knowledge then that has to be A Good Thing. I certainly won't be going to MOSDAB or APO precisely because they are frequented by pedants who really should find something better to do with their time here. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you imagine that the editors who have discussed and accepted these rules and also those that have been applying them for over ten years have somehow remained unaware of these general considerations? If you feel it's so important for a reader to be able to click on a link taking them to Second Nepalese Constituent Assembly while they're trying to figure out which of the people in the list is the one they're looking for, then sure, keep it. But the only readers that are going to care are the ones that were looking for that precise Paudel who was a member of assembly, and they could easily get a link to that assembly from the first sentence of the article they needed in the first place. Anyway, I don't care whether there's one or two extra links here. On an unrelated note, I'm wondering what was wrong with the birth/death years. Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Uanfala, I'm not very well at the moment and am happy to await input from anyone else who might be watching this page. There should be quite a few because it has been the subject to the attention of a prolific sock. Right now, I've taken another dose and I'm far too doped up to assess things properly. I noted your last edit (some concern about phrasing) - don't sweat it, please. I've had much worse than anything you are likely to throw at me, accidentally or otherwise. I know you mean well, and that is what matters. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)